Mela Singh v. Ram Krishan

IN T

1. RSA-244

Mela Singh (dec Ram Krishan (d through LRs and

2. RSA-245

Mela Singh (dec Ramesh Chand

CORAM : HO

Present: In

Mr

Mr

Mr

In

Mr

Mr

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

Re Pro

4-1992 (O&M) ceased) through LRs VERSUS deceased) d Others

5-1992 (O&M) ceased) through LRs VERSUS & Others

ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate for th r. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate for resp r. M.S.Bhatt, Advocate for respon RSA-245-1992 r. J.S.Bhandohal, Advocate for th r. S.S.Sarwara, Advocate for resp -.-

JAB AND HARYANA ARH served on:-17.09.2025 onounced on : 19.09.2025

….Appellant

....Respondents

….Appellants

....Respondents DEEP PANNU he appellant. pondent No.2 (a). ndents No.1, 3 and 4. he appellant. pondent No.2 (a).

-

MANDEEP PA

1.

RS appellant Mela Courts below, i. Sub Judge First passed by the Second Appeals Lower Appellate matter and are, t Brief Facts

2.

The Suit No. 318 of decree for decl measuring 0 Big plaint, and for p dispossessing hi the defendants h writing dated 25 he is the owner property. The p shown as a co-s of the writing da wrong entries, t dispossess him,

ANNU, J. A No. 244 of 1992 and RSA N Singh challenging the concurr e. the judgment and decree date t Class, Khanna, and the judgm learned Additional District Ju s arisen out of connected suits e Court, between the same partie therefore, being disposed of toge e facts giving rise to the litigati f 24.05.1988 against Ramesh Ch laration to the effect that he is gha 14 Biswa 6 Biswansi as ful permanent injunction restraining im from the suit property. The c had sold the suit land to him for

5.06.1978 and delivered possessi r in possession and the defenda plaintiff further alleged that def sharer in the revenue record only ated 25.06.1978 had not been sa the defendants were threatening hence the necessity for filing the

No. 245 of 1992 have been filed rent findings recorded by both d 25.08.1990 passed by the learn ment and decree dated 09.10.19 udge, Ludhiana. Both the Regu decided by common judgment es and relating to the same subje ether by this common judgment. ion are that Mela Singh filed C hand and Kaushalya Devi seekin s the owner in possession of la lly described in the headnote of g the defendants from alienating case set up by the plaintiff was t r a consideration of ₹6,000/- vid ion. He claimed that since that d ants had no right or title left in fendant no. 2 Kaushalya Devi w y because the mutation on the ba anctioned. Taking advantage of su to alienate the suit property and e suit.

- d by ned ular t of ect-Civil ng a and g or that de a ate, was asis uch

3.

The denying the sal borrowed a sum had been delive and that the wr registered instru

4.

Rep

5.

On

¶1disp

2. OP

3.

6.

Du and others, who against Mela Sin in Khasra No. 1 @ Ram Kishan death of other c ten years earlier from the defend interest, but he transfer possess e defendants contested the cl le and asserting that defendan m of ₹3,950/- from the plaintiff. ered possession of the suit land o riting dated 25.06.1978 was no ument capable of conferring own plication was filed by the plainti n the basis of pleadings, the follow Whether the plaintiff is the pute? OPP Whether the plaintiff is ent PP Relief. uring the pendency of the above o were co-sharers in the land, file ngh for possession of land meas 31, claiming to be owners thereo n and others was that they had b o-sharers mentioned in the reven r, Ramesh Chand, son of Kaush dant Mela Singh and had deliver had no right to do so as he ion. It was their case that when

laim by filing written stateme nt no. 1 Ramesh Chand had o . It was their plea that the plain only in lieu of interest on the lo ot a valid sale deed, nor was i nership rights. ff reiterating his stand. wing issues were framed: owner in possession of the land titled to injunction as prayed f suit, Ram Krishan @ Ram Kish ed Civil Suit No. 495 of 25.07.19 suring 0 Bigha 14 Biswa compri of. The case set up by Ram Krish become exclusive owners after nue record. They alleged that ab halya Devi, had borrowed ₹3,95 red possession of the land in lieu was neither owner nor entitled called upon to vacate, Mela Sin

- ent, only ntiff oan, it a d in for? han ised han bout 50/- u of d to

not only decline for a decree for

7.

Me Chand and his m the writing dated

8.

Rep

9.

Fro

1.

¶2suit

3. CP

¶4pro so,

5.

10.

Bot the learned Sub Ramesh Chand convenience, in plaintiff and Ram Civil Suit No. 3 Devi, while in t ed but filed a separate suit for inj possession against Mela Singh. ela Singh contested this suit als mother Kaushalya Devi had sold d 25.06.1978 and that he had sin plication was filed by the plainti om the pleadings of the parties th Whether the plaintiffs are the Whether the plaintiffs have t? OPD Whether the present suit is li C? OPD Whether Ramesh Chand an operty to defendant Mela Singh its effect? OPD Relief. th suits were consolidated vide b Judge, Khanna. Civil Suit No. & another, being the earlier suit n the consolidated proceedings mesh Chand and others as defen 318 of 1988, the defendants we the connected suit Ram Krishan

junction against them. They pray o, reiterating his plea that Ram d the land to him for ₹6,000/- v nce been in possession as owner. ff-Ram Krishan @ Ram Kishan he following issues were framed: e owners of the suit land? OPP no locus standi to file the pres iable to be stayed under Section nd Kaushalya Devi sold the s vide writing dated 25.06.1978? order dated 17.04.1990 passed 318 of 1988, titled Mela Singh t, was treated as the main case. s, Mela Singh was referred to ndants. It is pertinent to note tha ere Ramesh Chand and Kausha n @ Ram Kishan and others w

- yed mesh vide n. : sent n 10 suit ? If d by h v. For as at in alya

plaintiffs, who i Bhan), whereas

11.

In Mukhtiar Singh whom were atte into evidence co and Ex. P4.

12.

On Ram Krishan @ DW3, and Piara another writing loan. Findings of the

13.

The recorded a categ plaintiff Mela established that were co-owners dated 25.06.197 PW2 Mukhtiar mentioned only appended her sig as a valid sale d included Kaushalya Devi along w Ramesh Chand was not a party t support of his case, Mela S (Sarpanch) as PW2, and Sher S esting witnesses to the writing d opy of Jamabandi Ex. P2 and co n the other hand, the defendants e @ Ram Kishan as DW2, Chiranj a Singh as DW4. The defendants as Ex. DW3/A, claiming that it e trial Court e learned trial Court, after a gorical finding that it was an ad Singh was in possession of Kaushalya Devi, Parkash, Bhim s of the land along with some ot 78 (Ex. P1) by Ramesh Chand w Singh and PW3 Sher Singh, y Ramesh Chand as the execut gnatures. The Court, however, h deed, as it was not a registered do

with Parkash and Bhim (sons of to the second suit. ingh examined himself as PW Singh (Nambardar) as PW3, both dated 25.06.1978. He also tende opies of Khasra Girdawaris Ex. examined Kaushalya Devi as DW ji Lal (scribe of another writing) s also tendered in evidence copy t represented the true transaction appreciating the entire eviden dmitted case of the parties that the suit land. JamabandiEx. m and Ram Krishan @ Ram Kish thers. The execution of the writ was proved through the testimony though the body of the writ tant while Kaushalya Devi mer held that Ex. P1 could not be trea ocument, and no title in immova

- Tej W1, h of ered P3 W1, ) as y of n of nce, P2 han ting y of ting rely ated

property worth instrument. Thu

14.

As loan, evidenced been proved in a for leading seco the scribe, admi transaction betw was told to him.

15.

In possession, he h defendants bein filed by Mela S while the conne decreed for poss Singh, as she h consideration re Findings of the

16.

Lea The Court recor Devi and, on a transfer in the n words indicating carries the desc more than ₹100/- could pass us, the writing Ex. P1 could not c regards the plea of the defendan d by Ex. DW3/A, the trial Court accordance with law, as it was o ondary evidence had been obtain itted in his cross-examination tha ween Ramesh Chand and Mela S . The Court, therefore, rejected th consequence, the trial Court he had acquired no ownership rights ng co-sharers were entitled to se Singh for declaration and injun ected suit filed by Ram Krishan session, subject to payment of ₹ had signed Ex. P1 and thereb eceived. e Lower Appellate Court arned appellate Court observed t rded that Ex. P-1 bears signature a plain reading of its recital, th nature of a sale, it recites the c g that no right or interest was to criptive particulars of the land

s except by way of a registe confer ownership upon the plaint nts that the transaction was only t held that the said writing had only a photocopy and no permiss ned. Moreover, DW3 Chiranji L at he had no knowledge of any s Singh and had merely written w he plea of loan. eld that though Mela Singh was s in the suit land under Ex. P1. T eek possession from him. The s nction was accordingly dismiss n @ Ram Kishan and others w 6,000/- by Kaushalya Devi to M by incurred liability to return that Ex. P-1 requires close scruti es of Ramesh Chand and Kausha he document manifestly record consideration of ₹6,000/-, conta o remain with the vendors and ev d on its face. The appellate Co

- ered tiff. y of not sion Lal, sale what s in The suit sed, was Mela iny. alya ds a ains ven

accordingly hel substance a sale further noted the cross-examinati appellate Court transaction in fo recital in the ins them. Submissions of

17.

Lea Court that the t completed sale; would neverthe Transfer of Prop performance and that the plaintif doctrine of part Learned counse and that the pla hence the facts f

18.

Lea conclusions of t language and re being one by ld that the instrument, though e deed and not merely an agre e contemporaneous admissions m on that the sum of ₹6,000/- wa t concluded that the document orm and substance and that the ve strument manifested the intentio f learned counsel for the partie arned counsel for the appellan true character of Ex. P-1 is that he submitted that even if the do eless entitle the plaintiff to pro perty Act by reason of his posse d by reason of the payment of t ff had performed his part of th t-performance require that he b el pointed out that the trial Cour aintiff had been placed in posse fall squarely within the protectiv arned counsel for the respondent the Courts below. It was urged ecitals, must be treated as a deed which an immovable propert

h not registered, is in form a eement to sell; the appellate Co made by DW-1 (Kaushalya Devi as received. On those findings prima facie denotes a comple endors had by their conduct and on that no right should remain w s nt, Mela Singh, urged before t t of an agreement to sell and no cument be treated as unregistere otection under Section 53A of ession having been delivered in p the consideration. It was contend e contract and that equity and be protected against dispossessi rt itself found execution of Ex. ession upon payment of the pri ve ambit of Section 53A. ts, on the other hand, supported that Ex. P-1, by reason of its o d of sale and that such a transacti ty is purportedly transferred

- and ourt ) in eted with this ot a ed it part ded ion. P-1 ice; own ion,

consideration ex under the Regi ineffective to p provision and d the instrument unregistered doc intended to acc validate and con Findings

19.

The in substance a sa registration of E benefit under S reference the s embodies the contracted to tr provided the te reasonable certa is willing to p transferor is pre possession.

20.

On be examined to recorded in the xceeding the statutory threshold istration Act; non-registration t pass title. It was further urged oes not operate to clothe the tra is in form a conveyance which cument cannot be allowed to eff omplish and the protection und nvert an unregistered sale into co e questions which require determ ale deed or an agreement to sell; Ex. P-1; and (iii) whether, on the Section 53A of the Transfer of statutory provision may be no doctrine of part-performance ansfer immovable property by erms necessary to constitute the ainty, and the transferee has take erform his part of the contrac ecluded from enforcing his legal n the first question, the relevant f gether. The recital in Ex. P-1, t evidence and conceded in cro

d, required compulsory registrat therefore rendered the instrum d that Section 53A is a defens ansferee with title; moreover, wh h should have been registered, ffect what statutory registration w der Section 53A is not available onveyance. mination are (i) whether Ex. P- ; (ii) what is the legal effect of n e facts, the appellant can derive f Property Act, 1882. For ease oticed in substance, Section 5 and protects a person who a writing signed by the transfe e transfer can be ascertained w en possession and has performed ct then in such circumstances title so as to defeat the transfere facts and the recital of Ex. P-1 m the admitted receipt of ₹6,000/- oss-examination by DW-1, and

- tion ment sive here an was e to 1 is non-any e of 53A has ror, with d or ee's must - as

express languag intention to vest the conduct of document one w of the instrumen terms of instru contains the esse cannot be reduc before the Court viz. PW-2 and that Ex. P-1 is o to that effect is t

21.

On law is settled th to transfer title u of an instrumen conveyance to p Courts have re formality for a c mere character example, in a su validating an un of the Registrati circumstances b ge that no right or interest rem t proprietary rights in the purch the parties i.e. payment and d which in form and substance ope nt as an agreement to sell or a ument and the surrounding ci entials of a transfer and manifest ced to a mere pre-contract. In th ts below i.e the document itself, PW-3, and the contemporaneou of the nature of a sale instrumen thus borne out by the record. n the second question regarding hat a transaction which, by law, r unless the statutory formalities a nt which is required to be registe pass the title of immovable prop epeatedly emphasised that regi conveyance of immovable prope of admissibility of an unregi uit for specific performance doe nregistered instrument as a mode ion Act. Thus, while an unregist be received in evidence in procee

mained in the vendors, indicate haser. Such recitals, when read w delivery of possession, render erates as a sale. The characterisat s a deed of sale depends upon ircumstances. A document wh ts an intention to part with all rig he present case the material pla the evidence of attesting witnes us conduct support the conclus nt. The appellate Court's conclus g the effect of non-registration, requires registration cannot oper are complied with, non-registrat ered prevents it from operating a perty. The Supreme Court and H istration is a mandatory statut erty. It is equally established that istered document in evidence es not and cannot have the effect e of transfer of title in contravent tered agreement may in appropri edings for specific performance,

- an with tion hich ghts ced sses sion sion rate tion as a High tory for t of tion

effect of such requirement of r

22.

The Section 53A on a transferee in p transferee has p evidenced by a w constitute the tr and is available substitute for r transferor from pursuant to a bin

23.

Ho Act, 1882 is no conveyance wh cautious in allow effect of the sta to distinguish b agreement to sel to operate as a registration. In t shelter under S transfer of title registration cann reception is circumscribed and registration for acts of conveyanc e third and determinative questio the facts of this case. Section 53 possession from summary dispos performed or is willing to perf writing signed by the transferor ransfer are ascertainable. The do as a shield to the transferee in p registration and does not itself setting up his legal title agains nding contract and who has acted wever, the protection of Sectio ot unbounded. Where the instrum ich, by law, ought to have bee wing an unregistered instrument atutory obligation of registration between (a) an unregistered do ll and (b) an instrument which, b a conveyance of title and ther the latter category, courts have h Section 53A to convert an unre e. The statutory policy of mak not be circumvented by the equi

d does not obliterate the statut ce. on is the scope and applicability 3A is remedial in nature. It prote ssession by the transferor where form his part of a contract tha and wherein the terms necessary octrine is essentially one of equ possession. It does not operate a f confer title. It merely bars t a transferee who is in possess d in furtherance of that contract. n 53A of the Transfer of Prope ment relied upon is in substanc en registered, the courts have b t to be invoked so as to nullify n. The jurisprudence has develop ocument which is prima facie by its terms and recitals, is intend refore triggers the requirement held that the transferee cannot pl egistered conveyance into a va king certain transactions public itable doctrine of part-performan

- tory y of ects at is y to uity as a sion

erty ce a een ped an ded t of ead alid by

Recent judicial unregistered ag person to invok instrument and has been placed Online Del 918 of Transfer of document.

24.

Ap noticed, is in fo preliminary agre a conveyance. W instrument and of immovable p of Ex. P-1 preve rights of co-ow entries. Section possession is tre available agains indefeasible title instrument is in operate as a sal which entitles th the price and th pronouncements have accordin greement for specific performan ke Section 53A where the docum the Registration Act requires re d on Arun Kumar Tandon v. Ak 8, wherein it was held that in ord Property Act, the document r plying these principles to the fa orm and substance a transfer in t eement to sell. The omission of r While the appellant did indeed ob paid the price, the statutory sch roperty be effected by a register ents it from operating as a valid wners or third persons whose r 53A of the Transfer of Property eated as taken in part performan st the transferor, and it does no e by overriding the statutory req n essence a conveyance. In sho le deed to transfer title and at b he appellant to restitution or com e Courts below have rightly held

ngly held that admissibility of nce does not ipso facto entitl ment is in the nature of a registe egistration. Reliance in this reg kash Telecom Pvt. Ltd., 2010 S der to give benefits of Section 5 relied upon must be a registe facts before us, Ex. P-1, as alrea the nature of a sale and not a m registration is fatal to its efficacy btain possession on the basis of t heme requires that a completed s red instrument. The non-registrat conveyance which could defeat rights are recorded in the reven y Act, 1882, even if the appellan nce, is essentially a defensive shi t enable the transferee to claim quirement of registration where ort, Ex. P-1 cannot be allowed best it is evidence of a transact mpensation from those who receiv d Kaushalya Devi is liable to rep

- f an e a ered gard SCC 53A ered ady mere y as that sale tion nue nt's ield m an d to tion ved

and awarded co ousting the true

25.

In t the conclusions trial Court and registration prev The protection appropriate circ conveyance so a justified in hold defendants (co-s the price and aw amount. The app to repay the pro with the equitab Any unregistere relied upon or ta of the Registrati respondent if an provisions of Se

26.

Acc repelled and the 1, the effect of ompensation, but it does not im co-owners in whose names the r the result, and for the reasons sta reached by the Courts below. the appellate Court, is in sub vents it from operating as a valid available under Section 53A is cumstances and cannot be inv as to defeat the rights of co-ow ding that the plaintiff had not deri sharers) were entitled to recover ward of compensation against th pellate Court's modification of t oved ₹6,000/- and awarding furt ble reliefs available on the facts ed document cannot be looked aken into evidence in view of Se ion Act. Thus, benefit of Section nd only if the alleged Agreemen ection 17(1)A of the Registration cordingly, the submissions of le e concurrent findings of the Cour its non-registration and the ina

mpart upon him a title capable revenue record stands. ated above, this Court concurs w Ex.P-1, on the material before bstance a sale instrument. Its n d conveyance so as to transfer ti limited to shielding possession voked to validate an unregiste wners. The trial Court was theref ived title under Ex. P-1 and that r possession subject to restitution he signatory who had received the decree ordering Kaushalya D ther compensation is in accorda s and does not call for interferen d into by the Court and cannot ection 17 (1A) read with Section n 53A could have been given to nt to Sell cum receipt satisfied n Act. earned counsel for the appellant rts below on the character of Ex applicability of Section 53A of

-e of with non-itle. n in ered fore n of Devi ance nce. t be n 49 are . P-

Transfer of Prop Both the above-

27.

Pen

September 19, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh perty Act, 1882 to validate it a -mentioned Regular Second App nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : S hether reportable

as a mode of transfer are affirm eals fail and stand dismissed. stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE Speaking : Yes

-